Some questions about the latest patch

[ColinWright]

Maybe this should be in the 'wishlist' thread, but...

WHY do the new supply rules not permit sea roads?

Also -- in what seems to be a connected development -- the new supply rules prevent the use of a combination of major river and anchorage hexes to create a barrier that all units can cross but supply cannot.

Finally, it's a bit disappointing that the new supply rules effectively eviscerate supply units. They've gone from being a tool that can effectively double supply in some situations to one that merely extends the supply radius a bit, if I read the description aright.

I realize of course that I can merely use the old supply rules if I'm disappointed, but I'd like to use the new supply rules, as I like the basic concept. But there again...to have variable supply points, I have to use the new supply rules. But that entails chucking sea roads and having supply units that cannot revolutionize the situation in areas otherwise suffering from poor supply.

Who makes these decisions? When are they discussed? Is there some kind of real programming need for these restrictions or are they -- ala the 'no helicopters before 1960' restriction -- just someone's notion of what is fitting?

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

WHY do the new supply rules not permit sea roads?

They do. All works fine.

You may have falsely interpreted the "Anzio issue". That is that ferry bridging cap can no longer trace supply over a blown bridge/major river/deep water combination.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Also -- in what seems to be a connected development -- the new supply rules prevent the use of a combination of major river and anchorage hexes to create a barrier that all units can cross but supply cannot.

A logical consequence. New supply gets everywhere motorised movement does.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Who makes these decisions? When are they discussed? Is there some kind of real programming need for these restrictions or are they -- ala the 'no helicopters before 1960' restriction -- just someone's notion of what is fitting?

Ralph, Bob... ?? I don't know more than you. The only place such things would be discussed is the beta tester's/development forum. As said, i don't know more than you.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Telumar

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

WHY do the new supply rules not permit sea roads?

They do. All works fine.

You may have falsely interpreted the "Anzio issue". That is that ferry bridging cap can no longer trace supply over a blown bridge/major river/deep water combination.

I think I need to rephrase this then. WHY can 'ferry bridging cap no longer trace supply over a blown bridge/major river/deep water combination'?

It's a misfortune with no up side as far as I can see.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Telumar


Ralph, Bob... ?? I don't know more than you. The only place such things would be discussed is the beta tester's/development forum. As said, i don't know more than you.

It's a misfortune with no up side as far as I can see.

This then would also be a misfortune as far as I can see.

After all, as in this case, the consequences for scenarios in progress can be dramatic. It'd be nice to have some input.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Finally, it's a bit disappointing that the new supply rules effectively eviscerate supply units. They've gone from being a tool that can effectively double supply in some situations to one that merely extends the supply radius a bit, if I read the description aright.

Supply units are not and never were supply sources. Rather they represent independent supply transport assets. Specifically, enough to increase the number of supply vehicles in the supply column by 25%. As such, the lift to supply is dependent upon how far from the supply source the destination is at.

If you add 1,000 trucks to a supply line that is 50 km long it has much more effect (in gross supply delivered) than if you add 1,000 trucks to a supply line that is 1000 km long.

So, it was done for realism purposes. New supply is an attempt to increase realism. Had the supply unit boost been independent of distance, that would have been a hit to realism.

Some day, we, hopefully, may have the ability to amalgamate the effects of multiple supply units. Then there can be greater support applied. But it will still be dependent upon distance from supply source.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Telumar

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

WHY do the new supply rules not permit sea roads?

They do. All works fine.

You may have falsely interpreted the "Anzio issue". That is that ferry bridging cap can no longer trace supply over a blown bridge/major river/deep water combination.

I think I need to rephrase this then. WHY can 'ferry bridging cap no longer trace supply over a blown bridge/major river/deep water combination'?

It's a misfortune with no up side as far as I can see.

It simply wasn't anticipated. I expect it to be fixed in 3.5.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Finally, it's a bit disappointing that the new supply rules effectively eviscerate supply units. They've gone from being a tool that can effectively double supply in some situations to one that merely extends the supply radius a bit, if I read the description aright.

Supply units are not and never were supply sources. Rather they represent independent supply transport assets. Specifically, enough to increase the number of supply vehicles in the supply column by 25%. As such, the lift to supply is dependent upon how far from the supply source the destination is at.

If you add 1,000 trucks to a supply line that is 50 km long it has much more effect (in gross supply delivered) than if you add 1,000 trucks to a supply line that is 1000 km long.

So you say. I say they represent a concentration of logistical effort -- whether trucks, planes, mule teams, shipping, or simply available supplies.

So, it was done for realism purposes. New supply is an attempt to increase realism. Had the supply unit boost been independent of distance, that would have been a hit to realism.

Again, so you say. One could also argue they represent a concentrated effort get supplies up to a certain area in spite of logistical obstacles.

Some day, we, hopefully, may have the ability to amalgamate the effects of multiple supply units. Then there can be greater support applied. But it will still be dependent upon distance from supply source.

Indeed, and this was already the case. Supply units couldn't put you in full supply -- just ameliorate the consequences of being in very poor supply.

At the end of the day, the change takes a fairly useful tool in the designer's armory and eviscerates it -- apparently because of a conception of supply as simply a matter of 'trucks' rather than as a more generalized simulation of a concentration of effort and resources in general.

The first application of supply units in a disc scenario was some Austro-Hungarian 'attack Serbia or fight Russia' thing. It was set in 1914, and I doubt if the supply unit was supposed to represent 'trucks' in particular. It would seem that it was simply intended to reflect where Austria would place the weight of her effort -- be that in the form of trucks, wagon trains, available munitions, or hectoring letters from Vienna.

This is how I've always conceived of the things, and it is treated in this way that they make a useful tool. I don't think deciding that they represent masses of trucks in particular really improves matters. Rommel is at the end of a tortuous supply line where he is demanding scarce resources that will have to be brought over rail, sea, road, and/or air with considerable loss.

The Axis player moves his supply unit to him rather than sending it with Armeegruppe A into the Caucasus. Is it trucks? Is it Italian tankers? Is it Ju-52's airlifting stuff from Crete?

None of the above, really. It's simply where the effort goes.

As another example, I use 'supply units' in Seelowe. They pop up at any airfield the German takes. Now, they're not representing trucks here -- they're representing Ju-52's. And I don't want the supply net extended -- if anything, I want it concentrated around the airfields where the Ju-52's are landing. After all, in this case, the supply units hardly represent 'trucks.' They represent cases of MG 34 ammunition and mortar shells piling up at the strip ten kilometers off. Send some guys and carry them back...better than hoofing it to Dover, right? You're a long way from an airstrip, you're in that much worse straits.

Point is, supply units are an optional tool that doesn't really represent any one thing in particular. Depending on the situation, they could represent almost anything. Seeing them as 'trucks' is simply a restriction of their meaning that robs them of much of their utility. It is also, I might point out, a consequence of making changes without sufficient discussion. After all, it's not that your vision of supply units is flawed so much as that it's not the only possible vision.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Telumar




They do. All works fine.

You may have falsely interpreted the "Anzio issue". That is that ferry bridging cap can no longer trace supply over a blown bridge/major river/deep water combination.

I think I need to rephrase this then. WHY can 'ferry bridging cap no longer trace supply over a blown bridge/major river/deep water combination'?

It's a misfortune with no up side as far as I can see.

It simply wasn't anticipated. I expect it to be fixed in 3.5.

Ah. That IS good news. In fact, very good news.

Without creating a legal liability, can you give me a date on when '3.5' might be expected?

Also, seeing as how I'll be proceeding on the assumption that this will be revised as I obviously want, let me know if there are second thoughts.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Finally, it's a bit disappointing that the new supply rules effectively eviscerate supply units. They've gone from being a tool that can effectively double supply in some situations to one that merely extends the supply radius a bit, if I read the description aright.

Supply units are not and never were supply sources. Rather they represent independent supply transport assets. Specifically, enough to increase the number of supply vehicles in the supply column by 25%. As such, the lift to supply is dependent upon how far from the supply source the destination is at.

If you add 1,000 trucks to a supply line that is 50 km long it has much more effect (in gross supply delivered) than if you add 1,000 trucks to a supply line that is 1000 km long.

So you say. I say they represent a concentration of logistical effort -- whether trucks, planes, mule teams, shipping, or simply available supplies.

So, it was done for realism purposes. New supply is an attempt to increase realism. Had the supply unit boost been independent of distance, that would have been a hit to realism.

Again, so you say. One could also argue they represent a concentrated effort get supplies up to a certain area in spite of logistical obstacles.

Some day, we, hopefully, may have the ability to amalgamate the effects of multiple supply units. Then there can be greater support applied. But it will still be dependent upon distance from supply source.

Indeed, and this was already the case. Supply units couldn't put you in full supply -- just ameliorate the consequences of being in very poor supply.

At the end of the day, you've taken a fairly useful tool in the designers armory and eviscerated it -- apparently because you conceive of supply as simply a matter of 'trucks' rather than as a more generalized simulation of a concentration of effort and resources in general.

The first application of supply units in a disc scenario was some Austro-Hungarian 'attack Serbia or fight Russia' thing. It was set in 1914, and I doubt if the supply unit was supposed to represent 'trucks' in particular. It would seem that it was simply intended to reflect where Austria would place the weight of her effort -- be that in the form of trucks, wagon trains, or hectoring letters from Vienna.

[/quote]

[1_Lzard]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Without creating a legal liability, can you give me a date on when '3.5' might be expected?

Like usual, Colin, when it's done.

[8|]

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Supply units are not and never were supply sources. Rather they represent independent supply transport assets. Specifically, enough to increase the number of supply vehicles in the supply column by 25%. As such, the lift to supply is dependent upon how far from the supply source the destination is at.

If you add 1,000 trucks to a supply line that is 50 km long it has much more effect (in gross supply delivered) than if you add 1,000 trucks to a supply line that is 1000 km long.

So you say. I say they represent a concentration of logistical effort -- whether trucks, planes, mule teams, shipping, ...

So..."independent supply transport assets"? I only used trucks in the example. I wouldn't include planes or shipping, however. Clearly, a Supply Unit is a ground unit.

...or simply available supplies.

Nope. They are not supply sources. Never were.

Again, so you say. One could also argue they represent a concentrated effort get supplies up to a certain area in spite of logistical obstacles.

Explain what sort of "concentrated effort" would be independent of distance involved.

But it will still be dependent upon distance from supply source.

Indeed, and this was already the case. Supply units couldn't put you in full supply -- just ameliorate the consequences of being in very poor supply.

No, it was not the case. Old Supply ran on forever. Infinite supply lines. New supply was specifically intended to address that very issue.

At the end of the day, you've taken a fairly useful tool in the designers armory and eviscerated it -- apparently because you conceive of supply as simply a matter of 'trucks' rather than as a more generalized simulation of a concentration of effort and resources in general.

Nothing has been "eviscerated". Old Supply is still there if you still want infinite supply lines. New Supply, however, is intended to be a boost to realism. Supply Units have to be modeled as they now are for that reason. Anything else would be unrealistic.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

It is also, I might point out, a consequence of making changes without sufficient discussion. After all, it's not that your vision of supply units is flawed so much as that it's not the only possible vision.

We have NDAs. However, this feature was clearly described in item 5.8 in the Wishlist version 8 (posted in 2008, if I recall).

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Supply units are not and never were supply sources. Rather they represent independent supply transport assets. Specifically, enough to increase the number of supply vehicles in the supply column by 25%. As such, the lift to supply is dependent upon how far from the supply source the destination is at.

If you add 1,000 trucks to a supply line that is 50 km long it has much more effect (in gross supply delivered) than if you add 1,000 trucks to a supply line that is 1000 km long.

So you say. I say they represent a concentration of logistical effort -- whether trucks, planes, mule teams, shipping, ...

So..."independent supply transport assets"? I only used trucks in the example. I wouldn't include planes or shipping, however. Clearly, a Supply Unit is a ground unit.

...or simply available supplies.

Nope. They are not supply sources. Never were.

Again, so you say. One could also argue they represent a concentrated effort get supplies up to a certain area in spite of logistical obstacles.

Explain what sort of "concentrated effort" would be independent of distance involved.

But it will still be dependent upon distance from supply source.

Indeed, and this was already the case. Supply units couldn't put you in full supply -- just ameliorate the consequences of being in very poor supply.

No, it was not the case. Old Supply ran on forever. Infinite supply lines. New supply was specifically intended to address that very issue.

At the end of the day, you've taken a fairly useful tool in the designers armory and eviscerated it -- apparently because you conceive of supply as simply a matter of 'trucks' rather than as a more generalized simulation of a concentration of effort and resources in general.

Nothing has been "eviscerated". Old Supply is still there if you still want infinite supply lines. New Supply, however, is intended to be a boost to realism. Supply Units have to be modeled as they now are for that reason. Anything else would be unrealistic.

Well, I'm sure discussing this with you will prove futile, so I shouldn't, but...

Supply units -- whatever you may claim -- were not intended to represent any one thing in particular, and never did until you appointed yourself arbiter of such matters.

As they existed, they permitted a significant improvement of supply in areas that would otherwise have very poor supply. As such, they were a useful tool for designers who -- for whatever reason -- wanted to create such a capability. They could represent airlifted supply, strategic emphasis -- whatever. No particular concrete symbolism -- just a tool. To be used or not as appropriate.

As you have 'improved them' they still don't necessarily represent trucks. If I have one appear when an airfield is captured, it obviously doesn't represent more trucks. It represents whatever I intend it to represent -- in this case, Ju-52's or DC-3's or Valentias or whatever bringing in more supplies.

However -- again thanks to your 'improvement' -- the effect is no longer as dramatic and worse, is also linked to something -- the length of the ground supply line -- that may have nothing at all to do with the effect the designer is interested in.

You've announced these 'are more trucks' and acted accordingly. There's nothing about them that makes them 'more trucks.' They can't carry a leg infantry unit around. Conversely, they can show up in places and in scenarios where they couldn't possibly be trucks. I fail to see how you have done anything positive at all here.

[ColinWright]

We have NDAs.

What are 'NDA's?' Is there some reason I should recognize these initials?

However, this feature was clearly described in item 5.8 in the Wishlist version 8 (posted in 2008, if I recall).

I see. Should I comb the last three years of the wishlist to see what else has or hasn't been resolved? And was it resolved at that time?

Somehow I suspect not.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

...New Supply, however, is intended to be a boost to realism. Supply Units have to be modeled as they now are for that reason. Anything else would be unrealistic.

One would hope any change is intended to have a positive effect on realism. The alternative would be a bit perverse.

I heartily disagree with your assertion that the new supply units are 'more realistic.'

However, leaving that aside, is there any particular reason the new adjustable supply points could not be used with the old supply system?

[1_Lzard]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
What are 'NDA's?' Is there some reason I should recognize these initials?

NDA= Non Disclosure Agreement. Something we've signed with Matrix when we became testers. Keeps us from telling the world what we're doing. You'd be surprised how many people DO recognise them, Colin!

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: 1_Lzard

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
What are 'NDA's?' Is there some reason I should recognize these initials?

NDA= Non Disclosure Agreement. Something we've signed with Matrix when we became testers. Keeps us from telling the world what we're doing. You'd be surprised how many people DO recognise them, Colin!

Oh yeah...I suppose I didn't think of proposed changes to TOAW as something that should be kept confidential.

Come to think of it, I still don't. It seems -- witness the above -- that whatever the legitimate function of an NDA, in this case it also serves to make a change a fait accompli.

What would actually have been the problem with discussing -- in advance of making the change -- the notion that supply units should merely extend the supply radius rather than increasing the supply delivered by a fixed percentage of the base supply level as in the past? Or the notion that they necessarily can only represent and should only represent an increase in land transportation assets?

The fact of the matter is that the definition and potential usefulness of supply units was radically altered -- and radically altered without any public discussion.

[ColinWright]

Anyway, what's really unfortunate is that it's all a 'package.' 

If you want the variable supply points, you've got to accept that supply units have now been eviscerated.  At least we'll apparently get sea roads back -- some day.

To return to the point that's starting to interest me most, is there some programming reason the variable supply points have to be bound up with accepting the new supply lines?  Or could they in fact be used with the old supply system as well without undue difficulty?

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

...New Supply, however, is intended to be a boost to realism. Supply Units have to be modeled as they now are for that reason. Anything else would be unrealistic.

One would hope any change is intended to have a positive effect on realism. The alternative would be a bit perverse.

I heartily disagree with your assertion that the new supply units are 'more realistic.'

However, leaving that aside, is there any particular reason the new adjustable supply points could not be used with the old supply system?

I don't know what alternate reality you reside in (and don't want to know), but here on Earth, there is no way to extend supply lines to infinity. Any other mechanism other than the one effected would have left infinite supply lines in place. There was only one correct solution.

Supply units have never, ever, modeled a supply source. That you may have been using them in that fashion is not TOAW's problem. The objective of new supply was realism.

Obviously, we can't afford to support two supply systems. The retrograde Old Supply thing is not going to get any more development. Whether it can, nevertheless, benefit from developments of New Supply, only Ralph can say.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Oh yeah...I suppose I didn't think of proposed changes to TOAW as something that should be kept confidential.

Come to think of it, I still don't. It seems -- witness the above -- that whatever the legitimate function of an NDA, in this case it also serves to make a change a fait accompli.

Feel free to take that up with Matrix. But I think they prefer their games to not be developed by committee.

What would actually have been the problem with discussing -- in advance of making the change -- the notion that supply units should merely extend the supply radius rather than increasing the supply delivered by a fixed percentage of the base supply level as in the past? Or the notion that they necessarily can only represent and should only represent an increase in land transportation assets?

The fact of the matter is that the definition and potential usefulness of supply units was radically altered -- and radically altered without any public discussion.

Nevertheless, had you been reading the Wishlist, you would have been aware of it. But I guess we were supposed to give you a personal notification.